darq

Bloody hell, with what crime? Convincing your comrades to not work?

International relations are politics. The marches are intended to place pressure on politicians of the country they are occurring in, to adopt certain international relations positions.

Yes, they have two date systems in common use. It’s only the year that changes though. And there’s no way to confuse the two, usually. If you write “2023” instead of “令5” it’s pretty obvious. I suppose there is a potential for confusion if one just writes a two-digit year though.

It’s not radical at all. It’s just ineffectual, unfortunately.

Yup, it’s a single character from the name of the era, and the era changes every time the emperor does.

Yeah but half the time is actually: EYY/MM/DD. Like this year is 令5/MM/DD.

And some years have two values, 2019 was both 平31, from 01/01 until 04/30, then 令1 from 05/01 onwards.

You still have the problem of misaligned incentives

Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.

That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.

together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion

I reject that premise.

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

Except we aren’t talking about two people, are we? We’re talking about entire populations of people.

And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.

Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.

Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don’t work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we’re paranoid that they might just be lazy.

We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others’ throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they “don’t deserve”.

And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.

The conclusion pushed by this article makes genocide easier to swallow.

I really don’t see how? Everything about the article condemns these actions?

The whole idea of twisting the media’s line of “this is Israel’s 9/11” makes it more impactful, rather than making it easier to swallow.

Israel is not “about to take” any actions it has not already pursued against the Palestinians for fifty years

Yes, agreed. And the article is supportive of that conclusion too. It takes a mocking tone at the idea that the attacks “came out of nowhere” and specifically states that the US, and Israel, played a key role in creating the conditions that give rise to the attacks that they then use as a justification for further escalation.

parallel to 9/11 is a mistake, or(more likely) a jingoistic attempt to trick Americans into supporting a rapidly concluding genocide.

I took the exact opposite conclusion from the article. It seems to be a condemnation of the US’s actions in the wake of 9/11, and thus also a condemnation of the actions the author believes Israel are about to take in the wake of the Hamas attack.

Remember, we know how to address many of the world’s problems, including poverty, homelessness, and climate change.

But those with capital in society choose not to.

(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.

Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

That’s not my argument.

I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.

The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

That isn’t comparable, and you know it.

The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.

The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.

It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.

And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.

Yes, people are hating the game. That’s the entire point.

Except there really isn’t a choice. You pay rent or… What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.

“Just find a cheaper house” isn’t actually an option available to people who you know… Want to have a job. It’s just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn’t engage with the actual issue.

It literally is no problem if you already have assets to use as collateral. The problem is that most people don’t.

Except nobody is saying that.

They’re saying landlording shouldn’t be possible. That the provision of shelter should be done by some other means.